Mark's ending (was: Lk 1:5f)

... Bruce, I don t know what you think was narratively promised but not delivered. If you are referring to the promises in 14:28 and 16:7, then I understand

Message 1 of 41
, Oct 2, 2005

0 Attachment

Bruce Brooks wrote:

> Thinking about Ron's suggestion, just now, reminded me of something possibly
> relevant, which I toss in as a sort of second reply to at least that aspect
> of his comment. It concerns the degree to which local communities and
> traditions were in mutual contact in the 1st century.
>
> I start with the ending of Mark, and I note that those who feel it is
> interrupted in the middle of a sentence seem to have the better of the
> argument. Parallels can be found, with extreme effort, for ending a sentence
> or even a segment with gar, but not a whole work, and anyway, the point with
> Mark is that if it ends at Mk 4:8 [16:8], it does not narratively deliver what
> it has narratively promised, and that is a no-no.

Bruce,

I don't know what you think was narratively promised but not delivered. If
you are referring to the promises in 14:28 and 16:7, then I understand your
point, but would answer it by arguing that both these verses were
interpolated into the text. Anyway you'll have to make a very good case if
it's to outweigh the overwhelming consensus of recent critical scholars that
16:8 is the original ending.

Mark is the subtlest of the synoptic authors. His picture of an empty tomb
is quite enough to suggest the resurrection of Jesus. He avoids presenting
any of the original disciples as seeing the risen Jesus, for this would add
to their status, contravening his persistent denigration of Peter et al..

Of course, as we know, later generations did try to plug what they saw as an
omission (Mk 16:9-20 etc.), but all such later additions can be shown to be
inauthentic.

... Bruce, I don t know what you think was narratively promised but not delivered. If you are referring to the promises in 14:28 and 16:7, then I understand

Message 41 of 41
, Oct 2, 2005

0 Attachment

Bruce Brooks wrote:

> Thinking about Ron's suggestion, just now, reminded me of something possibly
> relevant, which I toss in as a sort of second reply to at least that aspect
> of his comment. It concerns the degree to which local communities and
> traditions were in mutual contact in the 1st century.
>
> I start with the ending of Mark, and I note that those who feel it is
> interrupted in the middle of a sentence seem to have the better of the
> argument. Parallels can be found, with extreme effort, for ending a sentence
> or even a segment with gar, but not a whole work, and anyway, the point with
> Mark is that if it ends at Mk 4:8 [16:8], it does not narratively deliver what
> it has narratively promised, and that is a no-no.

Bruce,

I don't know what you think was narratively promised but not delivered. If
you are referring to the promises in 14:28 and 16:7, then I understand your
point, but would answer it by arguing that both these verses were
interpolated into the text. Anyway you'll have to make a very good case if
it's to outweigh the overwhelming consensus of recent critical scholars that
16:8 is the original ending.

Mark is the subtlest of the synoptic authors. His picture of an empty tomb
is quite enough to suggest the resurrection of Jesus. He avoids presenting
any of the original disciples as seeing the risen Jesus, for this would add
to their status, contravening his persistent denigration of Peter et al..

Of course, as we know, later generations did try to plug what they saw as an
omission (Mk 16:9-20 etc.), but all such later additions can be shown to be
inauthentic.